Have you ever heard these words: 'What is true for you is not true
for me' -- 'Don't impose your values on me' -- 'You have no
right to tell me what to do'? Sure you have. These words are very
popular. Unfortunately, they have been taught in schools. How many
teachers have you heard say, 'Come on guys, don't be scared. There
is no right or wrong opinions.'

This is from the idea called relativism. Relativism is the philosophy
that denies absolutes or what is really true. There are four kinds of
relativism: metaphysical, epistemological, moral, and religious. The
metaphysical relativism is the claim that there are no absolutes in
reality; epistemological is that there are no absolutes in knowledge;
morality is the denial of moral absolutes; and religious is the clam
that there is no true religion. We are going to deal mostly with moral
relativism in this essay. But first, I must refute the propositions 'what
is true for you is not true for me' and 'there is no right or wrong
opinion.'

The first proposition, what is true for you is not true for me, is
self-contradictory since it asserts an absolute, which is, what is true
for you is not true for me. In other words, is it absolutely true that
what is true for you is not true for me? Again, it asserts an absolute,
making it self-contradictory.

The second proposition, that there is no right or wrong opinions, is
a wrong proposition too. Let me give an example of an opinion that can
either be right or wrong. If someone says, 'In my opinion, Osama Bin
Laden is dead,' can he be right or wrong? If Osama is dead, then he is
right, if not, then he is wrong. He might not know if he is right or
wrong, but he is either right or wrong. Both cannot be true at the same
time. Therefore the proposition that there is no right or wrong opinion
is false.

Let us start with moral relativism. Moral relativism is the belief
that there are no moral absolutes; that morality is relative to
something (i.e. individual or society). The other philosophy is called
moral absolutism, that there are moral absolutes. Moral means what we
ought to do and ought not to do. The question is whether they are
absolute or relative. They cannot be both right at the same time, so one
must be true. Here are some arguments for relativism.

Argument #1

Values differ from culture to culture. What is right in one culture
is not right for another. Since they differ from culture to culture, we
can conclude that values are relative.

Response: This argument assumes what it is supposed to be
proving; that is, values differ from culture to culture. It doesn't.
What they differ about is what they think value is or their opinions on
values. As I have shown before, opinions can be wrong. If one culture
believes that murdering six million Jews is morally right, it doesn't
make it so. Also, if this is true, then how can we condemn the Nazis? If
there is no objective standard to apply to, then we ought not to condemn
them because it would be meaningless. The only reason why we can condemn
some things such as the holocaust is that we presuppose an objective or
absolute standard that everyone ought to apply to.

Second, this argument presupposes that one should always obey the
culture in which he lives in. If my culture says that slavery is okay,
does it make it so? Slavery was once permitted by the Supreme Court in
the United States. However, we all know that slavery is wrong. So what
made us overturn that decision? The answer is that there is a higher law
than the civil law in which the government ought to apply to. This is
what we call the natural law or moral law. Morality is not dependent on
the government, but the government is dependent on the morality.

Argument #2

People have different values. Some believe for example that the death
penalty is right and some don't. Therefore values are relative.

Response: This is pretty much the same thing with the first
argument. People can be wrong on what they believe in. If one believes
murdering women is okay, we condemn that person. Since we condemn
people, it shows that we presuppose an objective value.

Argument #3

Morality is determined by situations. For example, lying is wrong.
But lying to the Nazis where the Jews are is right. Since situations are
relative and changing, then morality is relative and changing.

Response: Morality is not determined by situations, but
conditioned by it. It determines it partly, not wholly. There are three
things that make a moral act good or bad: situation, motive, and the act
itself. All this means is that one should apply objective principles to
situations. Also, this does not prove moral relativism, but situational
relativism. For example, murder is wrong, but one must murder someone
for self-defense.

What situation does is making a deed right. Killing for self-defense
makes killing not murder. Therefore killing for self-defense is not
wrong. Also, lying to the Nazis isn't lying at all because the Nazis
don't have the right to know where the Jews are. Another point people
think is true is that good intentions is enough. It is not. Hitler had
good intentions, but his actions were not. A good intention can make a
deed good, but a good intention does not make a bad deed good.

Argument #4

Morality comes from evolution. Groups that developed morality
survived. 'Survival for the Fittest' explains it all.

Response: This violates a basic law of all science: the law of
causality. It puts more in the effect than the cause. It says that
morality comes from non-morality. This is absurd. Therefore it is false.
It is also an assumption since biology doesn't explain anything how or
why the mind works, but what happens. Morality doesn't depend on
physical or natural science, but metaphysics, the study of reality or
being. Right depends on what is (i.e. animal rights, human rights, etc).

Rebuttal to Response to Argument #4

A greater can come from a less. A person who is older is much
smarter, much fatter, and much older than a baby. Also, children tend to
be better than their parents. Also, army can come from non-army.

Response to Rebuttal: The example of the person getting older
is just growth. Also, if one looks at all the causes, such as all the
education and food, it shows that the greater did not come from the
less. One must add all the causes. The Mona Lisa is not caused by Da
Vinci's brush. The brush is just an instrument and there is more in Da
Vinci than Mona Lisa. Same goes for the army. First, there must be an
idea. Then, there must some kind of organized people to make up all the
weapons. And then there is all the training one must have. So the army
did come from something.

Arguments for Moral Absolutism

Even though the arguments for moral relativism are refuted, it can
still be true. To show it isn't, one must offer some kind of argument
for moral absolutism as well. This is what we would look at now.

Argument #1

The first moral experience we have is absolute. For example, we
believe the good for ourselves or for the humanity. However we may
disagree on how to accomplish this is a different story. Also, there is
never a kind of culture that had a totally different kind of values.
Honesty, courage, cooperation, wisdom, and self-control has never
thought to be evil, while things like lying, theft, murder, torture, and
selfishness was never thought to be good. Some may have different
definitions of them, but all agree on those points.

Argument #2

The second argument is from moral language. We condemn wrong actions
and praise good actions. We say things like 'That is not fair!' or
'You are wrong!' Those are imperative words and it appeals to a
universal or objective standard. This proves that either moral
absolutism is true or that all moral argument is impossible and
meaningless. But moral argument is possible. Therefore moral absolutism
is true.

Argument #3

This argument shows that relativistic morality is self-contradictory.
There are no other alternatives to absolute morality because there is no
other kind of morality, but no morality at all, just feelings, or
conventions, or consensus, or games, or social approval. Absolute
morality is saying something like three-sided triangle. If it isn't
three sided, it isn't a triangle.

Argument #4

The last argument is the practical self-contradictory argument. This
argument finds a self-contradiction in a relativist's practice.
Relativists try convincing us that relativism is true. But that is
exactly the problem. They suggest that relativism is really right and
absolutism really wrong. This is what absolutism is. They assert an
absolute. They also condemn actions, which show that they appeal to an
absolute.

Great Books On This Subject

A Refutation of Moral Relativism by Peter KreeftHandbook of Christian Apologetics by Peter Kreeft and Fr.
Ronald TacelliThe Abolition of Man by C.S. LewisMere Christianity by C.S. Lewis